First off, if you don't know what the heck I'm talking about, here's the TV Tropes explanation: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfIdealismVersusCynicism
Vanguard: Saga of Heroes felt pretty idealistic from what I remember of it, even though it had a number of arguably "evil" races like the Dark Elves or Orcs. WoW on the other hand is very much on the cynical side - in fact almost all of the major antagonists are the antagonists precisely because their idealism was shattered in some amazingly cruel fashion. Just ask Malygos or Fendral Staghelm.
So basically, I've been wondering where on this scale the world of Terminus & the Perception system questing is planned to be - or will it depend on which race/class you play as? Although I've read that Pantheon will be inspired by Vanguard and the original Everquest, based on the Lore so far I can see Terminus as one of those universes where strict good guy-ism does not always work - either in the eyes of VR's story team or in a literal in-universe sense with the Perception system.
I think the biggest issue here is that you lack perception. Why do you call something evil? What you call "evil" may simply be how that particular race/character evolved in their own world. Many people today think that Russians are "evil". They try to interfere with American politics, they have mafia, they try to scam folks online/via phone, etc. But let's look at them through the history of the last full century. They had a civil war. They had famine. They were mutilated during WW2. They had starvation on a scale we cannot fathom. During WW2 they lost well over 20 million souls to the war. They lost millions more to starvation and other malodies. Those who survived learned to adept to a bleak future. They learned that surviving meant sometimes doing unto others what they would not want done to them. But, they learned to survive. As a Marine during the era of the Soviet Union I can tell you this: we were NEVER taught to hate Soviet soldiers. We were taught to respect them. They were able to do what they did with minimal resources and training. The one time I came nose to nose with Soviet arms was revealing: we all smiled, waved, and cheered one another. All of us. A year later there was no more Soviet Union.
How does this play out in an MMO? Use your imagination, mate. I don't think the Skar are evil. Not even in the slightest. They behave based on their evolution. Read the lore. The strong survive - the weak provide. I don't think the Myr are evil. It isn't even close. They are on Terminus not by their choosing. Again - it is a desire to survive. We are already seeing that this isn't even close to being the first round of new inhabitants. There is more lore in this insinuation then any of us could believe. Most of the previous inhabitants have NOT survived. Maybe if they were a little more "evil" they would have.
"There is no good and evil. Only power and those too weak to seek it" - JKRowling
One can argue that good and evil are meaningless concepts. There are "us" and there are "them". We call them evil because it spurs us on to compete more vigorously and they call us evil for the same reason. As between the United States today and Russia today this is almost surely the truth. Some people may be evil depending on one's definition. One side may or may not be better for its citizens or the human race as a whole. But "evil" is perhaps going too far.
Was Hitler and the nazi party evil when they murdered many millions of people? Subhumans in their eyes. Both Jews and others. Most westerners would probably say yes. In another area of the world the reaction might be closer to "too bad you missed some".
By Nephretiti's definition perhaps those that consider Hitler evil lack perception. Germany lost a long and painful war. They were occupied and subjugated. They paid punitive reparations. People died of starvation. Those who survived learned to adapt to a bleak future.
If you call something evil you first need to define evil. That should go without saying. Give a definition and then we can consider whether anything about Terminus is evil. Or any group in the history of our world whether Russia, the United States, Hitler, the Spartans that killed their weaker babies or anyone else.
Good and evil are necessarily subjective and depend on whose ox is getting gored.
Nephretiti said:"There is no good and evil. Only power and those too weak to seek it" - JKRowling
"Nobody is the villian in their own story" - George R. R. Martin.
What a character in a world like Terminus sees as 'evil' wholly depends upon their personal frame of reference. Are the Skar or Ogres evil? Not in their own eyes, no. Are the Elves and Halfings good? In their own eyes, yes.
While I do believe firmly that there are indeed certain ways to objectively define "good" actions and "evil" actions (and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Hitler's actions were in any way grey in morality), it is possible to blur the lines and commit otherwise "evil" actions with good intentions and vice versa.
Interesting stories explore those nuances. But that doesn't mean that the moral of the story is "everything is grey, there is no such thing as good and no such thing as evil". That's just a cop-out and awfully bland. The complexity comes in exploring what can drive otherwise compassionate people to do horrible things. Or perhaps what can help someone who has been thoroughly disillusioned (often through horrible but relatable experiences) regain their sense of appreciation for life and the goodness in others. Or even that people with very dark intentions will sometimes do things that - even if briefly, even if selfishly - could be perceived as helpful to a "greater" good.
Naunet said:While I do believe firmly that there are indeed certain ways to objectively define "good" actions and "evil" actions (and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Hitler's actions were in any way grey in morality), it is possible to blur the lines and commit otherwise "evil" actions with good intentions and vice versa.
This is only because social norms dictate what is considered "good" and "evil". You have to objectively look through the eyes of the person assessing the situation and most people will never be able to do that. The shop owner who's bread is being stolen considers the thief evil. The thief who is stealing bread to feed his child does not. It's all based upon the perception of the individual and the action.
Porygon said:This is only because social norms dictate what is considered "good" and "evil". You have to objectively look through the eyes of the person assessing the situation and most people will never be able to do that. The shop owner who's bread is being stolen considers the thief evil. The thief who is stealing bread to feed his child does not. It's all based upon the perception of the individual and the action.
Stealing bread to eat is completely different from killing millions of people because you don't think their lives are worth anything. But I don't think this particular debate is likely appropriate for the forums.
I see this as relevant to Terminus in two different ways.
One is the matter of character reputation and faction. Will there be anything widespread along the lines of the more "evil" factions like you the lower your reputation with "good" factions. Or, as I expect, will it be purely local and based on what you have done for or against a specific faction and for or against its allies and enemies but your overall approach to the universe matters not at all apart from their local concerns?
A very different issue is how we as players react to VR putting "good" or "evil" cultures into the world and whether it keeps them balanced or whether one predominates. Some people hate playing in a basically good world where the primary opportunities are to oppose evil. Think LOTRO here. Some people feel exactly the opposite.
But there are levels of "good" and "evil". A highly amoral culture does not remotely resemble one dedicated to the death by torture of every other sentient being in the multiverse.
Personally I prefer conflicts of interests where cultures can hate eachother with great passion but no side is clearly good or evil. But Terminus involves Gods and Gods are reputed to be a bit ....monomaniacal on some issues.
The moral as we know it since a few thousands years has not designed people as good or evil . It is only acts that can be designed in that way . One could talk in circles whether a serial killer or a thief is evil or not taking in account contexts , intentions and what not . Yet (almost) everybody will agree that the acts of killing an innocent person or of stealing are evil regardless of context . A person is always a mixture of good and evil acts (even a serial killer can love his children and A.Hitler loved his dog) so that nobody is purely evil or purely good .
In that sense the lore describing the Skars shows them enjoying in evil acts - killing innocent, enslaving , torturing, looting . In that sense they can be designed as a statistically evil culture because they execute in their vast majority objectively evil acts . Perhaps there are some exceptions but they would probably not survive for a long time in such an environment so that it makes sense to generalize and to design all Skars as an objectively evil race (apologies to the 2 saints in their history :)) . As for how the Skar see themselves , they probably wouldn't understand the terms "good" and "evil" at all because they have no moral which could define these words . They may have rules , laws , beliefs , desires , policies but no moral which would aim at universality . They would probably use the words "useful" and "useless" instead .
So considering the Pantheon's lore, I see it quite on the idealist side . Now the players that's something else because we are all (at least I suppose) human so that we can only behave and think like humans . And then there will be little difference between a player playing a Skar and a player playing an Elf . The exception could be the players who RP their character but they are generally a small minority in MMORPGs .
Deadshade said:The moral as we know it since a few thousands years has not designed people as good or evil . It is only acts that can be designed in that way . One could talk in circles whether a serial killer or a thief is evil or not taking in account contexts , intentions and what not . Yet (almost) everybody will agree that the acts of killing an innocent person or of stealing are evil regardless of context . A person is always a mixture of good and evil acts (even a serial killer can love his children and A.Hitler loved his dog) so that nobody is purely evil or purely good .
In that sense the lore describing the Skars shows them enjoying in evil acts - killing innocent, enslaving , torturing, looting . In that sense they can be designed as a statistically evil culture because they execute in their vast majority objectively evil acts . Perhaps there are some exceptions but they would probably not survive for a long time in such an environment so that it makes sense to generalize and to design all Skars as an objectively evil race (apologies to the 2 saints in their history :)) . As for how the Skar see themselves , they probably wouldn't understand the terms "good" and "evil" at all because they have no moral which could define these words . They may have rules , laws , beliefs , desires , policies but no moral which would aim at universality . They would probably use the words "useful" and "useless" instead .
So considering the Pantheon's lore, I see it quite on the idealist side . Now the players that's something else because we are all (at least I suppose) human so that we can only behave and think like humans . And then there will be little difference between a player playing a Skar and a player playing an Elf . The exception could be the players who RP their character but they are generally a small minority in MMORPGs .
What a fantastic response.. I got halfway through writing something similar (no way near as eloquent though) but got side tracked yesterday.
I'd even say : Will players play differently if they are a human paladin or a skar necromancer ? Won't they kill the monster that carry usefull loot for them, or for a quest with a good reward ? I do think players will favor a "Need" way to play even if it can destroy factions they don't care about. They will probably kill anything that tries to kill them, and theses might be different due to race and class (good npc/evil npc, like evil races farming Rivervale's guards). But ultimately, that's the need / greed matrix that will force players to decide who to kill and how to act.
I think people get ethics and morals confused...but to each and there own lol.
I think there are objective morals that civilizations have to adhere to if they want to survive. I remember there being three...but only remember two of them. First one is care for your young, second one is don't indiscremtly kill. If you break any of those you basically lose.
As for whether idealist or cynicism I think both. Skar are objectively evil and have a more idealistic view, while Dark Myr are more in the grey area and are on the cynicism side.
Watemper said:I think people get ethics and morals confused...but to each and there own lol.
I think there are objective morals that civilizations have to adhere to if they want to survive. I remember there being three...but only remember two of them. First one is care for your young, second one is don't indiscremtly kill. If you break any of those you basically lose.
As for whether idealist or cynicism I think both. Skar are objectively evil and have a more idealistic view, while Dark Myr are more in the grey area and are on the cynicism side.
This is basically what I was getting at.
Also kind of frustrated at video game writers trying so hard to make sure everybody is "grey", such that none of the characters end up having any consistent morality to themselves. Exploring nuance to someone's morals is great, but you can't just slap on a murder spree or random mass enslavement out of the blue and call it good (looking at you, Blizzard).
Naunet said:Watemper said:I think people get ethics and morals confused...but to each and there own lol.
I think there are objective morals that civilizations have to adhere to if they want to survive. I remember there being three...but only remember two of them. First one is care for your young, second one is don't indiscremtly kill. If you break any of those you basically lose.
As for whether idealist or cynicism I think both. Skar are objectively evil and have a more idealistic view, while Dark Myr are more in the grey area and are on the cynicism side.
This is basically what I was getting at.
Also kind of frustrated at video game writers trying so hard to make sure everybody is "grey", such that none of the characters end up having any consistent morality to themselves. Exploring nuance to someone's morals is great, but you can't just slap on a murder spree or random mass enslavement out of the blue and call it good (looking at you, Blizzard).
Yea...a lot of people haven't experienced pure evil. I haven't, but I know some people who have. It is quite different when you read of something evil than actual experience. I have a bad memory but one example is of a guy back when the Nazis were defeated recently and this guy went to a movie theater in Germany. It showed a war movie with Jews being gased and the allied forces being killed. As he sat and watched the whole entire theater crowd was clapping and cheering for these things. He sat back horrified and fearful and realized that he was witnessing evil first hand. He was a pretty subjective fellow..but after that he couldn't say that wasn't evil. It was liek a lighting bolt struck him.
So all in all I feel subjectivity defeats itself because when someone claims subjectivity they are making a truth claim and thus being objective. Pointing out morality is subjective is an objective moral truth claim. So it kind of defeats itself in my eyes, but to each and there own.
“In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trials 1945-1949) I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men.
Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
-Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist assigned to watching the defendants at the Nuremberg trials
Iksar that is not a bad start - obviously the definition needs to go further. At least I think so.
Suppose I have no empathy. None. But I never murder or steal or rape because I am afraid I may get caught and punished. I am really timid.
Is a lack of empathy or complete amorality "evil" if it never results in any actual action?
@Iksar I think I have read that somewhere also...chilling stuff. Although it was selective empathy..which is just as bad.
Joseph Stalin, if this story is true, is probably one of the scariest dudes ever.
When he was starving and killing over 15 million of his population an advisor/ or General told him if he keeps this up the people will turn on him. He pointed at a chicken(alive) and told him to hand him the chicken. He began to pluck the feathers off the chicken causing the chicken a lot of pain. He put the chicken on the ground once it was plucked of its feathers and waddled around and then he took some food, put it in his hand and offered the chicken the food. The chicken went over to Stalin and started eating the food and he picked the chicken up and petted it. He looked at the person and told him, " Do you have your answer now."
dorotea said:Iksar that is not a bad start - obviously the definition needs to go further. At least I think so.
Suppose I have no empathy. None. But I never murder or steal or rape because I am afraid I may get caught and punished. I am really timid.
Is a lack of empathy or complete amorality "evil" if it never results in any actual action?
If you think it is okay for that stuff to happen, then yes you are. Even if you take no action. Thinking something is one thing. People have intursive thoughts. Thinking something and thinking it is okay, even if you don't do it because you are scared is another.
Watemper that fits in with all I have read of Stalin though I haven't heard that story before. Thanks for sharing it. Truly a classic example of how little Stalin was bothered by fowl play.
On whether the amoral coward is evil - I think it is an interesting question. I do not have an answer that satisfies me - you may be right.
dorotea said:Watemper that fits in with all I have read of Stalin though I haven't heard that story before. Thanks for sharing it. Truly a classic example of how little Stalin was bothered by fowl play.
On whether the amoral coward is evil - I think it is an interesting question. I do not have an answer that satisfies me - you may be right.
I guess another example I will try to say is lets say you think of evil things, whether murder, stealing, rape, pedophilia, genocide, w/e but you don't want to do any of those doesn't make you evil imo, but thinking any of those things should be okay is bad.
I've read up on stuff like OCD and intrusive thoughts and wouldn't think anyone is evil if they thought of any of those things listed. But if they wanted to do any of those things listed then that is a whole nother mindset I wouldn't understand.
dorotea said:Iksar that is not a bad start - obviously the definition needs to go further. At least I think so.
Suppose I have no empathy. None. But I never murder or steal or rape because I am afraid I may get caught and punished. I am really timid.
Is a lack of empathy or complete amorality "evil" if it never results in any actual action?
I think one can be evil without ever directly acting upon their internal thoughts/desires. There are tons of people in the world that fit the bill but are otherwise too afraid to get caught/punished but given the right circumstances would act, and usually those people vote/try to work within a system to tug things toward legitimizing or spreading their ill will. It's a sadly common thing in human history as the evils of mankind are most often the result of racism and/or xenophobia, dehumanize (kill off empathy) the "other" or outsider and you can convince people to willingly participate in atrocities.
"The world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it." -Albert Einstein
Similar things have been said all throughout history (commonly the "evil triumphs when good men do nothing" quote is said), which is where the lines of good/evil really start to blur to many people and excuses of things not being black and white come out. Are those who disapprove of or otherwise know something is wrong but do nothing also evil by means of being complicit, regardless of circumstance/cowardice? Personally I would say yes.
Vandraad said:Nephretiti said:"There is no good and evil. Only power and those too weak to seek it" - JKRowling
"Nobody is the villian in their own story" - George R. R. Martin.
What a character in a world like Terminus sees as 'evil' wholly depends upon their personal frame of reference. Are the Skar or Ogres evil? Not in their own eyes, no. Are the Elves and Halfings good? In their own eyes, yes.
You want to know what evil is? Look at most adventurers. There is your evil.
Adventurers abandon their homes and family to seek out fame and fortune. They randomly decide to slaughter anything that catches their fancy. Poor vendors offering goods to people, slaughtered for the contents of their bags. Entire population of animals slaughtered in a forest, with their corpses left to litter the ground. At least poachers bother to take the animals horns or testicles.
Paladins walk into the Orcs homeland, even during times of peace, just to slaughter for XP, leaving children without parents. They kill children in front of their parents without asecond thought.
Poor farmers trying to grow food for their families. Adventurers come onto their land and steal all their Harvestables.
Adventurers.
Deadshade said:The moral as we know it since a few thousands years has not designed people as good or evil . It is only acts that can be designed in that way . One could talk in circles whether a serial killer or a thief is evil or not taking in account contexts , intentions and what not . Yet (almost) everybody will agree that the acts of killing an innocent person or of stealing are evil regardless of context . A person is always a mixture of good and evil acts (even a serial killer can love his children and A.Hitler loved his dog) so that nobody is purely evil or purely good .
In that sense the lore describing the Skars shows them enjoying in evil acts - killing innocent, enslaving , torturing, looting . In that sense they can be designed as a statistically evil culture because they execute in their vast majority objectively evil acts . Perhaps there are some exceptions but they would probably not survive for a long time in such an environment so that it makes sense to generalize and to design all Skars as an objectively evil race (apologies to the 2 saints in their history :)) . As for how the Skar see themselves , they probably wouldn't understand the terms "good" and "evil" at all because they have no moral which could define these words . They may have rules , laws , beliefs , desires , policies but no moral which would aim at universality . They would probably use the words "useful" and "useless" instead .
So considering the Pantheon's lore, I see it quite on the idealist side . Now the players that's something else because we are all (at least I suppose) human so that we can only behave and think like humans . And then there will be little difference between a player playing a Skar and a player playing an Elf . The exception could be the players who RP their character but they are generally a small minority in MMORPGs .
Its funny how people say that Skar are evil because they enjoy evil acts.
Why don’t people call out the Paladins that walk into the Orcs camp and slaughter everyone for loot and XP. Especially those that do this day in and out. Seems like they are enjoying it just as much, if not more, than the Soar.
dorotea said:((You want to know what evil is? Look at most adventurers. There is your evil.))
A point often made since the days of Gary Gygax and maybe way before. In this, you are correct.
MMO setups leave little to no choice in character advancement, it's not like it was storytold for your own group / character. It's fairly easy to play a character that only defends itself in a tabletop RPG setup, but harder in an MMO where aggro radius is barely "beeing attacked".
But pushing the absurd : If a paladin walks into an orc camp and get attacked, is it legitimate defense ?